G.S. v. Cullman Cnty. Dep't of Human Res., 253 So. 3d 383

Background

Parents (G.S. and D. Je. S.) had four sons; DHR removed the children in Nov. 2012 after school and abuse reports and the juvenile court found the children dependent and awarded DHR temporary custody.
Long history of parental substance abuse and domestic violence: criminal convictions for the father (domestic violence, DUI); parents admitted prior methamphetamine use; drug tests in 2013 showed amphetamine/methamphetamine.
Parents completed some services (parenting classes; father completed an anger-management program but not all recommended programs); both moved toward sobriety after Aug. 2013 according to their testimony.
Mother relocated to Alaska in Sept. 2013, maintained inconsistent contact with the children for years, and requested an ICPC home study too late and with deficiencies; some relatives (maternal great-uncle/aunt) were approved but could not house all four children due to severe sibling conflict.
Children exhibited aggressive and traumatic behaviors, were placed in therapeutic foster homes; some children feared the father and refused contact with parents; oldest child lived with maternal great-uncle/aunt and vacillated about contact.
DHR filed termination petitions in Mar. 2016; juvenile court terminated both parents’ rights in Jan. 2017; appeals followed and the appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Parents' Argument	DHR / Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether grounds for termination (dependency) existed	Mother: she had improved (sobriety, counseling) and moved for stability; Father: rehabilitated and able to parent	DHR: parents previously abused/used drugs, mother abandoned children by moving to Alaska and failing meaningful contact; father’s history traumatized children	Court: Affirmed dependency—mother’s relocation and lack of meaningful contact supported abandonment/consistent-contact failure; father’s history and children’s trauma supported dependency
Whether DHR made reasonable reunification efforts	Mother: DHR failed to make reasonable efforts to reunite her with the children	DHR: where abandonment is shown, proof of reasonable efforts is not required	Court: Reversed argument—because mother abandoned the children, DHR’s reasonable-efforts obligation did not apply
Whether viable alternatives to termination existed	Both parents: relatives/placements were available and termination unnecessary	DHR: explored relatives; only maternal great-uncle/aunt suitable but could not care for all four due to sibling aggression; alternatives not viable	Court: No viable alternatives—relative placement was insufficient and children’s trauma made reunification with father especially nonviable
Evidentiary objections (admission of testimony/exhibits)	Mother: certain evidence improperly admitted, prejudicing outcome	DHR: other unchallenged evidence established same facts; any error was harmless	Court: Any evidentiary errors were harmless because unchallenged evidence supported the same conclusions; affirmed termination

Key Cases Cited

F.I. v. State Dep't of Human Res., 975 So.2d 969 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (standard for reversing TPR: only if record lacks clear and convincing evidence)
J.C. v. State Dep't of Human Res., 986 So.2d 1172 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (discussing standard of review and clear-and-convincing proof)
K.N.F.G. v. Lee Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 983 So.2d 1108 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) (two-prong test for nonparent TPR: dependency and absence of viable alternatives)
C.F. v. State Dep't of Human Res., 218 So.3d 1246 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016) (parent who abandons loses right to require exhaustion of alternatives)
D.O. v. Calhoun Cty. Dep't of Human Res., 859 So.2d 439 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) (trial court may consider past family history as well as current conditions in TPR decisions)
Ex parte Beasley, 564 So.2d 950 (Ala. 1990) (requirement that juvenile court consider alternatives to termination)
Ex parte Bush, 474 So.2d 168 (Ala. 1985) (harmlessness doctrine for improperly admitted testimony)